A.C. No.

7747 July 14, 2008

CATHERINE & HENRY YU, Complainants, vs. ATTY. ANTONIUTTI
K. PALAÑA, Respondent.
Summary:
Sps. Yu met a certain Mr. Uy who persuaded them to invest a
minimun amount of PhP 100,000 with the Wealth Marketing
Corporation in which he was the Division Manager. It turned out
that the company’s promises were false and fraudulent. As Wealth
Marketing’s Chairman of the Board of Directors, Respondent assured
the complainants that the new company formed, Ur-Link, would
assume the obligations of the former company by executing an
Agreement which, again, turned out to be another ploy to further
deceive the investors. Complainants filed a complaint for disbarment
against Respondent Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaña before the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) attaching therewith their Consolidated Complaint-
Affidavit which they earlier filed before the City Prosecutor’s Office
of Makati.
Facts:
1. Complainants met a certain Mr. Mark Anthony U. Uy (Mr. Uy)
who introduced himself as the Division Manager of Wealth
Marketing and General Services Corporation (Wealth
Marketing), a corporation engaged in spot currency trading.
a. Mr. Uy persuaded the complainants, together with other
investors, to invest a minimum amount of ₱100,000.00 or
its dollar equivalent with said company with an assurance
that said company had the so-called "stop-loss mechanism"
 that enabled it to stop trading once the maximum
allowable loss would be reached;
b. Should the company would suffer loss, Wealth Marketing
would return to the investors the principal amount
including the monthly guaranteed interests.
2. It turned out that the company’s promises were false and
fraudulent.
a. The investors, including the complainants discovered that
Wealth Marketing had already ceased its operation and a
new corporation was formed named Ur-Link Corporation.
3. Complainants proceeded to Ur-Link office where they met the
Respondent.
a. As Wealth Marketing’s Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Respondent assured the complainants that Ur-
Link would assume the obligations of the former company
by executing an Agreement which, again, turned out to be
another ploy to further deceive the investors.
4. Complainants sent demand letters to Wealth Marketing’s
officers and directors which remained unheeded.
a. They likewise lodged a criminal complaint for syndicated
estafa against the respondent and his co-accused.
b. Despite the standing warrant for his arrest, respondent
went into hiding and has been successful in defying the
law, to this date.
5. November 16, 2006: Complainants Henry and Catherine Yu
filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty.
Antoniutti K. Palaña before the Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) attaching
therewith their Consolidated Complaint-Affidavit which they
earlier filed before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Makati.
CBD:
1. The Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred
from the practice of law.
The Commissioner concluded that Wealth Marketing’s
executives (which included respondent herein) conspired with one
another in defrauding the complainants by engaging in an unlawful
network of recruiting innocent investors to invest in foreign currency
trading business where, in fact, no such business existed, as Wealth
Marketing was not duly licensed by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to engage in such undertaking, and that Ur-Link
was created only to perpetuate fraud and to avoid obligations.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred because of his
alleged acts of defraudation.

Ruling:
YES.
Lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only
legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the people’s faith and
confidence in the judicial system is ensured. Lawyers may be
disciplined – whether in their professional or in their private capacity
– for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and
good demeanor.
 In this case, two corporations were created where the
respondent played a vital role, being Wealth Marketing’s Chairman of
the Board and Ur-Link’s representative. It is also evident that
respondent is frolicking with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the purpose of employing fraud.To be sure,
respondent’s conduct falls short of the exacting standards expected of
him as a vanguard of the legal profession.

Addt’l Notes:
◊ Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or
by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or
for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x.
In this case, the Court notes that this is not the first time that
respondent is facing an administrative case, for he had been
previously suspended from the practice of law for the same offense—
being a legal officer in a corporation and made himself part of the
money trading business business when, in fact, said business was not
among the purposes for which the corporation (FIRI) was created,
meted the penalty of 3 years suspension, and also suspended for 6
months in another case. Finally, we note that respondent’s case is
further highlighted by his lack of regard for the charges brought
against him. His failure to comply with the orders of the IBP without
justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities. Thus,
considering the serious nature of the instant offense and in light of
his prior misconduct herein-before mentioned, the contumacious
behavior of respondent in the instant case which grossly degrades the
legal profession indeed warrants the imposition of a much graver
penalty --- disbarment, and his name be stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys.
◊ The fact that the criminal case against the respondent involving
the same set of facts is still pending in court is of no moment.
Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that
administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own.
They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of
criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not constitute a
prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are
attendant in the administrative proceedings. Besides, it is not sound
judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a
complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court
will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and
continuing membership in, the legal profession during the whole
period that the criminal case is pending final disposition, when the
objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary
proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for
private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the
public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official
ministration of persons unfit to practice law. The attorney is called to
answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.

Dispositive:
 WHEREFORE, respondent Antoniutti K. Palaña is hereby
DISBARRED, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll
of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in his record as a
member of the Bar; and let notice of the same be served on the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.